skip to main content
10.1145/3447555.3464862acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagese-energyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Temporal Vulnerability Assessment for Convex Hull Pricing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Convex hull pricing (CHP) was proposed to align the unit commitment and economic dispatch of the electricity market's sequential processes, by providing the minimal uplift payment. The implementation of CHP and its variants has generated much attention in both academia and industry. However, the vulnerability of CHP has been rarely assessed due to its complex structure. In this paper, to tackle this challenge, an equivalent form of CHP is identified, which provides valuable economic and structural insights. This equivalent form helps in revealing how generator bidding can influence the CHP. Based on this understanding, a vulnerability index is proposed to evaluate the risk that each generator brings to the CHP scheme. Numerical studies suggest the existence of vulnerability in the CHP and also highlight the complex nature of CHP scheme.

References

  1. Mark J Ablowitz, Athanassios S Fokas, and Athanassios S Fokas. 2003. Complex variables: introduction and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Panagiotis Andrianesis and George Liberopoulos. 2014. Revenue-adequate pricing mechanisms in non-convex electricity markets: A comparative study. In 11th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM14). IEEE, Krakow, Poland, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Panagiotis Andrianesis, George Liberopoulos, George Kozanidis, and Alex D Papalexopoulos. 2013. Recovery mechanisms in day-ahead electricity markets with non-convexities - Part I: Design and evaluation methodology. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 28, 2 (2013), 960--968. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2207920Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al. 2014. Staff analysis of uplift in RTO and ISO markets.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonio J. Conejo and Luis Baringo. 2018. Unit Commitment and Economic Dispatch. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 197--232. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69407-8_7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Pelin Damcι-Kurt, Simge Küçükyavuz, Deepak Rajan, and Alper Atamtürk. 2016. A polyhedral study of production ramping. Mathematical Programming 158, 1-2 (2016), 175--205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Feng Zhao Dane A. Schiro, Tongxin Zheng and Eugene Litvinov. 2016. Convex Hull Pricing: Rigorous Analysis and Implementation Challenges. [EB/OL]. https://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20150619142618-M2-1%20-%20SCKRO%20-%20Schiro_FERC2015.pdf Accessed June 16, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A Kumar David and Fushuan Wen. 2001. Market power in electricity supply. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 16, 4 (2001), 352--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Falk and James E. 1969. Lagrange Multipliers and Nonconvex Programs. Siam Journal on Control 7, 4 (1969), 534--545.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Paul R Gribik, William W Hogan, Susan L Pope, et al. 2007. Market Clearing Electricity Prices and Energy Uplift., 46 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowen Hua and Ross Baldick. 2016. A convex primal formulation for convex hull pricing. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 32, 5 (2016), 3814--3823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Midwest ISO. 2017. Extended LMP phase II: post implementation analysis. [EB/OL]. https://cdn.misoenergy.org Accessed April 22, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mehdi Madani, Carlos Ruiz, Sauleh Siddiqui, and Mathieu Van Vyve. 2018. Convex Hull, IP and European Electricity Pricing in a European Power Exchanges setting with efficient computation of Convex Hull Prices. arXiv:1804.00048 [math.OC]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Alexander Martin, Johannes C Müller, and Sebastian Pokutta. 2014. Strict linear prices in non-convex European day-ahead electricity markets. Optimization Methods and Software 29, 1 (2014), 189--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Somendra PS Mathur, Anoop Arya, and Manisha Dubey. 2017. A review on bidding strategies and market power in a competitive energy market. In 2017 International Conference on Energy, Communication, Data Analytics and Soft Computing (ICECDS). IEEE, Chennai, India, 1370--1375. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECDS.2017.8389668Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. LLC Monitoring Analytics. 2019. State of the Market Report for PJM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Piotr Pałka. 2017. Derivatives of the nodal prices in market power screening. Energy Economics 64 (2017), 149--157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.03.019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Michael Pollitt. 2006. Electricity Market Reform: An International Perspective, Feirdoon P. Sioshansi, Wolfgang Pfaffenberger (Eds.), Elsevier (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Navid Azizan Ruhi, Krishnamurthy Dvijotham, Niangjun Chen, and Adam Wierman. 2018. Opportunities for Price Manipulation by Aggregators in Electricity Markets. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 9, 6 (2018), 5687--5698.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Dane A Schiro, Tongxin Zheng, Feng Zhao, and Eugene Litvinov. 2016. Convex Hull Pricing in Electricity Markets: Formulation, Analysis, and Implementation Challenges. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 31, 5 (2016), 4068--4075.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jian Sun, Nan Gu, and Chenye Wu. 2020. Strategic Bidding in Extended Locational Marginal Price Scheme. IEEE Control Systems Letters 5, 1 (2020), 19--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Gui Wang, Uday V Shanbhag, Tongxin Zheng, Eugene Litvinov, and Sean Meyn. 2013. An extreme-point subdifferential method for convex hull pricing in energy and reserve markets---Part I: Algorithm structure. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 28, 3 (2013), 2111--2120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Michael L. Waskom. 2021. seaborn: statistical data visualization. Journal of Open Source Software 6, 60 (2021), 3021. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Chenye Wu, Subhonmesh Bose, Adam Wierman, and Hamed Mohesenian-Rad. 2013. A unifying approach to assessing market power in deregulated electricity markets. In 2013 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting. IEEE, Vancouver, Canada, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Temporal Vulnerability Assessment for Convex Hull Pricing

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        e-Energy '21: Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems
        June 2021
        528 pages
        ISBN:9781450383332
        DOI:10.1145/3447555

        Copyright © 2021 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 22 June 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate160of446submissions,36%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader